I see libs talking about how "haha these chuds don't even know what Critical Race Theory is!". But I think I get it now. White folks are so against "CRT" because it allows them to take all of their racist views and launder them through an acronym that makes it sound (to them at least) that no, they aren't racist. It's just this specific thing they apparently don't like, even though they claim "CRT" for anything that not only challenges white supremacy or institutional racism, but anything that implies white Americans aren't pure and good and the US is really "their" country.

What I mean is, it's very important to white people that they do not appear openly racist, even to other white people and for some, even to themselves. They've internalized the idea that racism is bad. But the problem is a whole lot of them are racist and people can't usually accept that they're the bad guys.

I have seen chuds label damn near anything as CRT. When you're white, history in most US classrooms skips over as much suffering of black and indigenous people as possible. Particularly reactionary parts of the country will nearly avoid any of that discussion entirely. But even in lib parts, you'll hear about the Trail of Tears, some discussion about slavery in the context of being the reason for the civil war, and then maybe some flowery stuff about MLK Jr (but that's if the class goes beyond WWII, which a lot will just stop there).

So now, some people are like "hey maybe 98% of history our kids learn shouldn't just be about how awesome and good white people are". White people lose their minds over this suggestion. But saying outright "no I don't want my kids to learn the details about how we stole land from the the indigenous people here or how we fire bombed black people in Tulsa not that long ago". But they can't SAY it like that because that's more obviously racist. So they use this "CRT" as a way to deflect from the idea that what they want is white supremacy but they have to pretend like they don't.